I do hope that canon introduces a few more EF-M lenses, and a few more bodies...just to make the line sustainable. But, I honestly don't know if I will buy anything more. I have the EOS-M, 18-55, the 22/2 and the 90 EX. The M is my go anywhere camera, either because of its size or because if it gets stolen, I am only out a few hundred dollars instead of a few thousand. Other than that, it is a back up body to my 5DIII when on serious trips. That is it. So, I really have little intention to buy more EF-M lenses and keeping up with current models. I can only see me upgrading the body if there is some significant advances.

But Canon needs to have people who make the EOS-M their primary camera system. That is just not me. It is a back-up/secondary system for me.

It's functions is annoying and especially with larger lenses than... Even the 22mm.

What functions are annoying? I can tell you right now for street photography I enjoy using the M more then a DSLR. I didn't think I would like the touch screen UI and bought the M because of the $299 deal, and reluctantly at that because of the negative reviews. Now you couldn't pry it from me. I love being able to touch select AF points, love live view exposure simulation, and I find I like the touch screen. And while I would add a dial or two and tweak the UI if I could, overall I find it to be fluid and easy to use. Oh yeah...at least with single point AF set to the AE lock button rather then the shutter, I find AF to be quick, sure, and accurate, and the overall shooting experience to be responsive.

It certainly doesn't replace a DSLR for everything. And I do think larger lenses are awkward on it. But the EF-M 18-55 is well balanced and Canon's smaller EF primes also work well.

Quote

You don't find it cumbersome/awkward? One of the reasons why people like FF is the size and grip feel in the hands etc. You put a nice tele lens or even a 24-70mm on a FF and it feels right.

And it's heavy. For some lenses and types of photography I absolutely want a DSLR with a viewfinder and the camera braced against my face. For other types I'm thrilled with the small, light M.

Quote

Better sensor than the 7D, okay. Still that doesn't mean much of anything. How many cameras have a better sensor than the 7D?

Out of the history of DSLRs? Not many. Like the 7D the M will pull off a 24" fine art landscape print at low/mid ISO and still produce good 8x10's and even 13x19's at ISO 3200. It's better then the 7D at high ISO, especially shooting JPEGs.

Quote

The fact that you can buy an adapter and use your other canon and canon mount lenses is cool... But why is my question. If they could make a 24-70mm or even an 18-55mm pancake, then ill sell all my gear and jump for it.

The existing 18-55 IS is small, light, and offers very good IQ. The only reason I think I would upgrade is if Canon offered a faster or constant aperture version.

The M is a very competent camera and I'm enjoying it so much for some types of photography that I added the 18-55, a flash, and will be adding the 11-22.

Somehow this thread is no longer relevant to the original post, but...

Would I use the M on a paid shoot? Yes, I just did. Shooting for a story in a small bi-monthly (~40,000 readers) about great spots for beer lovers. I took my regular gear and on a whim grabbed the M and 22mm as well. The bar I shot at was very welcoming but one of the bartenders I was shooting was clearly starting to get a little tense and nervous about a big camera in his face. So, I grabbed the M. I could shoot, conversation, and look the bartender in the eye at the same time. He relaxed and looked more natural. Guess which photos ran?

I like the M for casual shooting. It's good to have an APS-C camera with an f/2.0 lens in your pocket for $299.

But it is still too slow sometimes. Focus is a little slow, and the camera itself is sluggish. For example it takes about 3 seconds before you can shoot again even when you change from AE to M mode. Getting out of menu to shoot again is also slow. There's no C1-C3, so you can't save any setup conditions. The movie mode also is not separated, so picture profile in photo mode is the same in movie, just like all other settings.

I could go on, but for me the camera is just a good point and shoot that's awkward and slow and is small enough to carry for an emergency back-up.

I hope Canon doesnt give up on it. They should produce a really compelling EOS-M II, but the first version is worth about the $299 fire sale price, and it won't replace my 5DIII on anything but late night pub crawls.

BTW ... I bought a genuine Canon EF adapter on eBay for $89, so it takes all of my other lenses, but I typically just use it with the 22mm f/2.0

What I find amazing now is that the M has many more people defending it now.I am not sure if it is pride of ownership, or ego's defending a purchase they once said they would never make.

I could see a use for this camera in my kit with the adapter if it had a flip screen. If canon brings a new version with one I will get it.

I don't think so... Why would people defend something that they have never used? M threads were (mercifully) less frequent and shorter before the fire sale, which supports the idea that it did not sell all that well at its original price. In some respects, looking at M threads that only ran for a dozen or two posts is much easier than any 70D/7D/FF vs. crop/Sony versus Canon sensor tech threads, etc. I almost bought one at 400 on Ebay, but I'm glad I waited and snagged one at 300. It was not a good value at 800 when T4i and T3is sold for less for the same IQ, but now it is.

If EOS-M 2 comes out back at 800, with similar IQ, I won't be interested. Smaller sensors need faster glass when light levels are low. I don't like its IQ at ISO 3200/6400 at 1/30th of a second, which is why I value the 22mm f/2 more than the 18-55 IS. The M is cheaper than the S100 and delivers better IQ, so it has taken over the P&S's role in the house. Until APC-S can match what FF sensors can do today, I can't imagine using a CSC as a primary camera. The reduced flange distance gives it some advantages in lens design, but any fast glass (f/1.4) will require large lenses, so body size matters less and less.

What I find amazing now is that the M has many more people defending it now.I am not sure if it is pride of ownership, or ego's defending a purchase they once said they would never make.

It's simply that the M works pretty darn well.

It works the same now as when it was released ( except for any firmware upgrades of course)

Which is an important point, since the big sale occurred very soon after the firmware update which dramatically sped up AF (one of the biggest complaints about the camera from reviewers/users). Cameras sold at sale prices seemed to mostly come with the new firmware, too.

What I find amazing now is that the M has many more people defending it now.I am not sure if it is pride of ownership, or ego's defending a purchase they once said they would never make.

It's simply that the M works pretty darn well.

It works the same now as when it was released ( except for any firmware upgrades of course)

Which is an important point, since the big sale occurred very soon after the firmware update which dramatically sped up AF (one of the biggest complaints about the camera from reviewers/users). Cameras sold at sale prices seemed to mostly come with the new firmware, too.

$299 seems to be a bigger reason for buying from the people I know who have bought it than a faster AF system.